The Kerala High Court has upheld Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provides for the automatic revocation of certain wills upon the testator’s marriage. The Court rejected challenges alleging that the provision violated constitutional fundamental rights and conflicted with Section 20 of the Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment, while deciding a suo motu civil reference along with two connected proceedings.
Background
The reference arose from an order dated February 12, 2025, passed by the Sub Court, Punalur, in a pending civil suit. The proceedings raised questions about the constitutional validity of Section 69 and its relationship with Section 20, which addresses whether marriage affects a person's interests and powers concerning property.
Section 69 provides that a will is generally revoked by the maker’s marriage, subject to a statutory exception. However, the provision does not apply to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains in the same manner, owing to the restrictions and modifications under Section 57 and Schedule III of the Act.
The Bench examined the historical background of the provision, including its origins in English law and the legislative reasons for treating Hindu wills differently. It considered whether this distinction amounted to unconstitutional discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
The Court concluded that the difference in treatment had a reasonable basis. It noted that Hindu law recognises a married woman’s right to maintenance from her husband, including through the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Bench also observed that the corresponding protection was not available to Christians under an equivalent personal law imposing the same obligation.
Rejecting the constitutional challenge, the Court explained that the provision’s purpose was to protect the interests of a newly formed family following marriage.
The Bench observed:
“The mere fact that the statutory provision containing a laudable object as noted, was not extended to Hindus, by itself, shall not be a ground to hold it as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court also rejected the argument that Section 69 contradicted Section 20. It clarified that automatic revocation of a will does not create a property interest in favour of the new spouse or restrict the testator’s ability to dispose of property.
The Kerala High Court answered both questions against the challenge, upholding Section 69 as constitutionally valid and finding no conflict with Section 20. It declined to examine the separate challenge to the reference order in OP(C) No. 903 of 2026, considering that issue academic after deciding the constitutional question.
The connected proceedings were ordered accordingly.
